Subject: Re: GASP!!!

From: Peter Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 12:38:12 EST

Myron, I refrained from voting in the recent poll because I thought it was
premature.

I had also thought there was agreement to NOT rush to judgment, that is, to
wait until after a more comprehensive discussion of bridges and asynchronous
stream packets at the P1394.1 working group in Monterey this week.

I think a decision to leave the ARP formats as they are is very wrong-headed.
The only outcome I can see is a terrible mess for IP/1394. If P1394.1 adopts
the stance that asynchronous stream packets will NOT be forwarded by bridges
unless they are in the GASP format, IP/1394 implementations will have to have
TWO ARP and MCAP formats and will have to ARP twice (once for local and once
for remote IP nodes). On the other hand, if P1394.1 forwards all asynchronous
stream packets, the consequences for IP/1394 will be equally disagreeable: IP-
capable nodes will respond inappropriately to remote ARP with no way to
determine if the unicast_FIFO address is a virtual or physical ID.

I'm very disappointed that the working group seems to have elected to behave
like an ostrich and ignore the very real problems of ARP in the bridged
environment. Your participation is needed, in conjunction with P1394.1
members, to solve these problems. You have been offered a solution that works
and that is claimed to be usable NO MATTER WHAT bridging strategy is chosen by
P1394.1. Perhaps there should be more discussion on the adequacy (or not) of
this assertion? Because if it is credible, I think it is irresponsible for the
IP/1394 working group to NOT adopt GASP at present.

I hope to see members of the IP/1394 working group at the P1394.1 meetings
this week.

Peter Johansson

Congruent Software, Inc.
98 Colorado Avenue
Berkeley, CA  94707

(510) 527-3926
(510) 527-3856 FAX

[email-masked]